(1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. Heard Sri M. C. Chaturvedi and Sri Satya Prakash Singh learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned A. G. A. and Sri Anurag Pathak learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the petition the respondent No. 4 died. A Substitution Application No. 192595 of 2003 has been filed on 22-10-2003 by the learned Counsel for the petitioners to substitute the names of the heirs of the respondent No. 4. The time was granted to the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 to file objection in the aforesaid substitution application on 12-11-2003, but no objection has been filed by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4. The substitution application was allowed on 5-12- 2003 by this Court and the names of the heirs of the respondent No. 4 namely Charan Lal, Ramesh Chand, Naresh Chand and Smt. Prakashi, the widow of Chauhal were substituted as respondents No. 4/1 to 4/4 respectively.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order dated 18-1-2001 passed by the learned S. D. M. is illegal because the petitioners were in peaceful possession over the land in dispute and they have successfully proved their claim, but the learned S. D. M. has decided the question of the possession in favour of the respondent late Chauhal on the basis of the conjecture and surmises. IT is contended that the petitioners are owner of the land in dispute because the land in dispute was owned by one deceased Gultan. During his lifetime he had executed a sale-deed dated 17- 1-1981 and 18-2-1981 in favour of the petitioners. Gultan was living with the petitioners and a registered sale-deed was also executed by him regarding the share of his property (the property in dispute ). During his lifetime the Gultan was in possession and he was living with the petitioners. The petitioners were also in physical possession over the land in dispute on the basis of the sale-deed as well as registered will executed by the one Gultan.